Zack Polanski, the leader of England’s Green Party, has declared himself an anti‑Zionist as his party gears up to debate a motion that labels Zionism as racism at its forthcoming conference. The statement revives a long‑running dispute over the meaning of Zionism and whether the ideology can be characterised as racist, a debate that has gained fresh urgency amid the ongoing Gaza war.
Understanding Zionism
Modern Zionism emerged in the late nineteenth century from various strands of thought about Jewish collective and cultural identity, rooted in a millennia‑old religious longing to return to Zion that runs through Jewish holy texts. The term became most closely linked to Theodor Herzl’s political Zionism, which sought Jewish self‑determination and statehood in response to rising antisemitism across Europe.
Although Zionism is often portrayed as a single, uniform idea, its history contains multiple, sometimes contradictory, intellectual currents. For example, the philosopher Martin Buber advocated, before the foundation of Israel, a binational Arab‑Jewish state in Palestine.
Since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, the internal debate has largely centred on liberal versus right‑wing or “revisionist” camps, the latter exemplified by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party. Core issues have included settlement expansion, the occupation of Palestinian territories, and whether Israel should be defined as an ethno‑nationalist Jewish state.
As Dov Waxman, a professor of Israel studies at the University of California, observed in a recent article for The Conversation, “Jewish liberation and sovereignty, a safe haven from persecution, a revival of the Hebrew language, and a renewed sense of collective pride, especially after the Holocaust.” This captures how many Jews view Zionism not merely as a political programme but as a profound source of identity and security.
Why Critics Call Zionism Racist
One line of criticism treats Zionism as a shorthand for the state of Israel and argues that it constitutes a colonial project. Supporters of this view point to three main pieces of evidence. First, they highlight the violent displacement of Palestinians during the Nakba – the “catastrophe” for Palestinians that accompanied the founding of the Jewish state. Second, they contend that Israel has established an apartheid system of unequal rights in the occupied territories, denying Palestinians the prospect of statehood and self‑determination. Third, they assert that within Israel itself, citizens of Palestinian origin face discrimination.
Before 1948, Palestinians maintained a vibrant society across British Mandatory Palestine, yet certain strands of Zionist thinking have often dismissed or diminished that historical connection. At the heart of academic debate lies the early Zionist slogan of a “land without people” for a “people without land”, which critics cite as proof that the movement was colonial from its outset.
Zionists, however, counter with evidence of a continuous Jewish presence in the Holy Land and argue that, for many, the idea represents a promised biblical patrimony and a refuge from a hostile world. They maintain that the movement’s goal is self‑determination rather than colonisation.
The Legal Battle Over the “Zionism is Racism” Claim
The assertion that Zionism equals racism is not a recent invention. It gained particular prominence during the Cold War when the United Nations adopted resolution 3379 in 1975. The so‑called “Zionism as racism” resolution likened “the racist regime in occupied Palestine” to apartheid South Africa. Sponsored by the Arab League and promoted by the Soviet Union, it secured backing from numerous developing nations but was later repealed in 1991 under pressure from then‑US President George H. W. Bush.
Proponents of the argument say Zionism privileges Jewish rights over non‑Jews through a discriminatory framework. Opponents warn that framing Zionism as racist is antisemitic because it singles out Jews as a group and denies them alone the right to self‑determination, thereby serving as a cover for prejudice.
The war in Gaza has intensified these arguments, particularly after senior Israeli figures employed overtly racist rhetoric toward Palestinian society following the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on southern Israel.
In British law, the issue has been tested in the courts. An employment tribunal two years ago – that is, in 2024 – ruled that the views of David Miller, a former professor of political sociology sacked by the University of Bristol in 2021, that “Zionism is and always has been a racist, violent, imperialist ideology premised on ethnic cleansing” constituted a protected philosophical belief under the 2010 Equality Act. The decision was upheld on appeal.
Miller, a controversial figure, has also claimed in social media posts that Zionists have acted as “infiltrators and subversives”, gaining influence across all UK political parties, the media, entertainment industries, the law, financial institutions, sport and “all sorts of apparently obscure parts of the UK”. He is a key figure in the anti‑Zionist Movement and maintains links to Greens for Palestine, the group that has tabled the Green party motion declaring Zionism to be racism.
Why it Matters
The Green Party’s internal debate over whether Zionism is racist is more than a party‑political squabble; it reflects a broader societal struggle to reconcile competing narratives of historical injustice, national self‑determination and freedom of expression. How the party resolves this motion could influence its stance on Middle‑East policy, shape its relationship with Jewish and Palestinian communities in Britain, and signal where it draws the line between legitimate criticism of state policies and speech that may cross into hate. The outcome will therefore resonate far beyond the conference hall, affecting public discourse on one of the most intractable conflicts of our time.